Right then. It is late, I'm getting tired, forums need cleaning up so I'm writing you a quick-crit. Standard disclaimer: I don't finish a read beyond the "downvote moment" if I hit one, I do not comment on every single small detail for clinical tone, any grammar/mechanics issues I comment on are not comprehensive, and I personally prefer shorter, straightforward articles without excess "text padding". That said, here we go, comments made as I read:

Right from the start, you've got a typo. That's problematic since it gives the reader an automatically unflattering first impression of the piece: "A CLASS-ALPHA MEMETIC KILL AREN'T WILL BE DEPLOYED IN 30 SECONDS"

Also, with the way the collapsible is set up, does that mean that in-universe someone who didn't open the collapsible would have been hit with a memetic kill agent in 30 seconds even if they were authorized to view the document?

The whole "here's a couple things that only someone you trust would know about so now you must trust the words on the screen" bit feels kind of contrived. Also, I feel like some of those things aren't really the basis for longstanding blind trust. I don't think I'd have any trouble telling pretty much anyone that I eat meat, so why would being vegetarian in college be a piece of information to only be entrusted to certain individuals?

"SCP-XXXX has spread worldwide, and estimated to have infected 63% of the human population." > this is not a containment procedure, and belongs in the description of the "article".

The "article" never states what SCP-XXXX does, it just states that it's something that affects sleeping people.

The "article" never defines what the SCP-XXXX-1 subdesignation refers to.

"When a SCP-XXXX-1 instance has a vision (hereby referred to as "dreams") involving non-fictional humans, all humans are now SCP-XXXX-1 instances." > this doesn't make sense. If all humans are XXXX-1 instances after an XXXX-1 instance has a "dream", do people just repeatedly become XXXX-1 instances over and over? Does the condition ever change? This is confusing.

I skimmed most of the rest. I have to say, I feel like there's a nugget of a good idea--the fact that dreaming ends the world—but the development of the piece to get to that point is too clunky and loses me as a reader before I would have gotten to the better parts. Also, the twist at the end was good and unexpected, but still left me wondering why this letter was apparently being written, since the safeguard seems kind of moot if it's meant to be secret, and the information in the letter would tip off other people involved in command that whoever is reading the letter went behind others' backs to remember this thing that they (presumably?) agreed should be forgotten for the safety of everyone involved.

My main issue is that I'm having trouble figuring out how the Foundation managed to draw connections between dreaming and deaths (again, skimmed, but not quite sure how or why the Foundation figured out that this anomaly was such a huge issue anyway) and I as a reader feel way out of the loop when it comes to what's going on in-universe at this point.

I did at first, when it was a very basic idea about an anomaly that was spread through dreaming. As it evolved I probably shouldve gotten a second opinion on it, but where it is now feels a bit too developed (not necessarily in a positive/negative way) for the forum.

but where it is now feels a bit too developed (not necessarily in a positive/negative way) for the forum.

I recommend a second pass through the Ideas and Brainstorming forum just to confirm that the approach you're using is clear and understandable for readers. That said, it might also help you get the article setup into a more solid place if you can condense the draft into the main points of the background. That will likely also help with ironing out any inconsistencies or confusing bits.